alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 <LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF CAYENNE SOFTWARE, INC.
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORMS 10-K, 10-KA, AND
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000880229
<NAME> CAYENNE SOFTWARE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,346
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                       469
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,044
<PP&E>                                          18,753
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,940
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        170
<COMMON>                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,108
<SALES>                                          7,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,556
<CGS>                                              737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,484
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (5)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       209
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,958)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,958)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
#### Olga Bigio, Respondent, v Otis Elevator Company, Appellant.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), entered November 27, 1989, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $71,245.02.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, it was not error for the trial court to charge the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The evidence adduced at the trial established that the plaintiff fell while alighting from an elevator maintained by the defendant and that this elevator had stopped approximately two inches below the level of the landing. There was *824also evidence that the elevator in question had misleveled in the past and there was expert testimony that such misleveling would not occur except as a result of a mechanical failure which was the result of a failure to properly maintain the electrical systems of the elevator. While the defense proffered evidence to the contrary on these points, the record is nevertheless sufficient for the court to have permitted the jury to consider the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that the misleveling of the elevator was not the kind of event to occur in the absence of negligence *(see, Kelly v Watson Elevator Co.,*309 NY 49), that the elevator was in the defendant’s exclusive control as a result of a service contract with the building owner, and that the plaintiff did not contribute to the misleveling *(see, Burgess v Otis Elevator Co.,*114 AD2d 784, *affd*69 NY2d 623; *see also, Liebman v Otis Elevator Co.,*127 AD2d 745; *Peters v Troy Hous. Auth.,*108 AD2d 999; *Smith v Jay Apts.,*33 AD2d 624).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2007155EN.01002802.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/28

---

Action brought on 26 April 2007 — Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe and Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK v Commission

(Case T-140/07)

(2007/C 155/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe BV (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands), Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK Ltd (Havant, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Vallery, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicants respectfully ask the Court to

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety; and

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C (2007)546 of 15 February 2007 on the basis of which the Commission, has compelled the applicants, pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1), to provide specific information and documents related to practices under investigation in Case COMP/F/39309 — Thin Films Transistors Liquid Crystal Displays.

1

The applicants submit that the contested decision is unlawful in that the Commission lacks the investigative and enforcement power to compel EU subsidiaries to produce documents and to provide information under the sole custody and control of legal entities located outside the Commission's jurisdiction. It is, hence, submitted that the Commission erred in law by addressing a formal request for information to the applicants, thereby compelling them to provide documents and information under the sole control and possession of their parent company located outside the EU territory.

Precisely, the applicants claim that the contested decision infringes Article 18(1) and (3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 because it disregards the document ownership and control doctrine and thus the inherent limitation of these provisions. In addition, the applicants contend that the contested decision violates the general principles of international law of territoriality, of sovereignty, of non-intervention and of equality of States by allegedly asserting enforcement jurisdiction over a company located outside the EU.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules in competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).

1

---
#### Ann REDD-OYEDELE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-16985.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 14, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Ann Redd-Oyedele, Antioch, CA, pro se.

*198Alexander Nestor, Esq., Patricia P. White, Esq., Littler Mendelson, P.C., San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ann Redd-Oyedele appeals the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and the order denying her motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

Redd-Oyedele’s Title VII and Fair Employment and Housing Act claims fail because even assuming she has established a prima facie case of discrimination, she has not demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the proffered reason for the adverse employment decision was merely pretextual. *See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 641-42 (9th Cir. 2003). Redd-Oyedele’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims fail because she did not produce evidence showing that Defendants acted with an intent to discriminate. *See Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Cmty. Coll. Dist.,*934 F.2d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir.1991). Because Redd-Oyedele’s claims fail on the merits, we do not decide whether she may pursue an independent cause of action pursuant to section one of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Redd-Oyedele’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(3). “Neither ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or [her] attorney provide grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” *Engelson v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.,*972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.1992) (citations and quotation marks omitted). As for Rule 60(b)(3), Redd-Oyedele has not demonstrated that the judgment was obtained through fraud or other misconduct which prevented her from fully and fairly presenting her case. *See De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc.,*206 F.3d 874, 880-81 (9th Cir.2000).

Redd-Oyedele’s remaining arguments are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88061-88062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27878]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5867-054]


Alice Falls Hydro, LLC; Notice of Revised Procedural Schedule for 
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Project Relicense

    On September 29, 2021, Alice Falls Hydro, LLC filed an application 
for a

[[Page 88062]]

new license to continue to operate and maintain the 2.1-megawatt Alice 
Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 5867 (Alice Falls Project). On April 
24, 2023, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to prepare an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the effects of relicensing 
the Alice Falls Project. The notice of intent included a schedule for 
preparing a single EA.
    By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural 
schedule for completing the EA. The revised schedule is shown below. 
Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue EA..................................  March 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Kelly 
Wolcott at (202) 502-6480, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d2628212134633a22212e2239390d2b283f2e632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="345f5158584d1a435b58575b404074525146571a535b42">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 13, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27878 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2020313EN.01002004.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/20

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2020 — Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd, Airport Marketing Services Ltd v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-205/19 P) (1)

(2020/C 313/29)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Giant Industries, Inc. (Giant)
on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark
B. Cox, Chief Financial Officer of Giant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that: (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Giant. By:
    
    /s/ MARK B. COXName:
    
    Mark B. CoxTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
 Date: March 15, 2004.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
       H.R. 6227.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1340-E1341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      IN MEMORY OF CHLOE ZULCOSKY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN L. MICA

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2012

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Chloe Zulcosky, 
a recent graduate of Seminole High School in Sanford, Florida.
  There are some people in our lives that inspire us to be better, to 
reach for every opportunity, and, when we fall down, to brush ourselves 
off and continue pushing ahead. Friends, Chloe was one of those people. 
She served as a role model in her community, and shone through to all 
as a fun-loving and courageous young lady. Chloe showed the community 
of Seminole County how to live life as a kind, genuine and beautiful 
person.
  Chloe was the Senior Captain of her cheerleading team at Seminole 
High School. While at cheerleading camp at the beginning of her senior 
year, Chloe started having terrible migraines. After weeks of 
continuous pain, she was diagnosed with glioblastoma, a type of brain 
cancer which usually occurs with patients older than 55.
  Chloe underwent surgery in early September to remove the brain tumor. 
She was scheduled after the surgery for one year of chemotherapy to 
diminish any of the tumor that was not removed.
  She was able to experience a senior year full of love and support 
from the Seminole County community. Chloe received the honor of 
Homecoming Queen at Seminole High School, attended her prom, and 
graduated from high school.
  On Wednesday July 25, after a long and courageous fight, Chloe passed 
away. While it is with a heavy heart that I report to Congress that 
Chloe passed away today, I am confident that her life and memory will 
remain with not only those she knew, but all those who knew of her.
  I again ask we remember the life of this wonderful young woman and 
pray for the family and friends who are grieving her loss. May Chloe 
inspire us all.

[[Page E1341]]

                          ____________________
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20365

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN MICHAEL REYES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-517-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Michael Reyes appeals the sentence imposed upon his conviction

for being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Having

been previously convicted of three violent felonies - attempted murder,

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and burglary of a habitation - Reyes’s

sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to a

statutory minimum of 180 months of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2)

& (e).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 8, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20365 Document: 00512235575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2013
No. 12-20365

Reyes argues that the district court erred in refusing to consider the

legality of his Texas conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

This conviction is void, he argues, because he was sentenced to only two years

of imprisonment, and the Texas statute of conviction provides for a statutory

minimum sentence of 15 years. This argument is foreclosed by United States v.

Custis, 511 U.S. 485 (1994), in which the Court held that with the sole exception

of convictions obtained in violation of the right to counsel, a defendant in a

federal sentencing proceeding has no right to collaterally attack the validity of

previous state convictions used to enhance his sentence under the ACCA. 

Custis, 511 U.S. at 487; see also McNeill v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2218, 2223

(2011)(an ACCA case noting that definition of “crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” “creates a clear negative

implication that courts may count a conviction that has not been set

aside”)(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). His general argument

that his conviction for aggravated assault is not of the type that was intended

to be used for enhancement under the ACCA lacks merit. See United States v.

Martinez, 962 F.2d 1161, 1167-68 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 12-20365 Document: 00512235575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2013
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00274

- CR

Donald Lee MINSON

, JR

. , Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 1577

- CR

- A Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Lori Schmid ’ s notification of late record is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The reporter ’ s record is due n o later than September 11, 2017.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

cour t on this 11th day of August, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Perfumania Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 1, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Donna Dellomo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/S/ Donna DellomoDonna DellomoChief Financial OfficerJune 15, 2010
# C_2019255EN.01004301.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/43

---

Order of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO

(Case T-538/18) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause - Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition - Purely confirmatory measure - Period within which an action must be brought - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 255/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 14 December 2017, and ‘if need be’ the decisions of 28 November 2013 and 4 June 2014 of EUIPO terminating the applicant’s employment contract as of 30 June 2018, and, second, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Sigrid Dickmanns shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Sigrid Dickmanns shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---